Here is a link to the filmography of each:
Coens Scroll down the page.
Who do you think has made the better movies?
Do you think one pair is stylistically better than the other pair?
Pick your favorite movie from both and tell why it’s your favorite, if you don’t mind.
What, no Wachowskis? Bound was great.
I got nothing against the Farrelly bros, but they are not even in the same class as the Coens. This is kind of like asking “Mozart or Weird Al, which is better?”
I have seen every Coen brothers movie except for the most recent one, The Ladykillers. I have only seen two Farrelly brothers movies: Dumb and Dumber and There’s Something About Mary. I watched some of Kingpin, but not all of it. I definitely prefer the Coen brothers, and I think that stylistically, the two pairs of directors we’re talking about here are wildly different.
My favorite movie of theirs is Fargo, which I think is one of the greatest movies ever made. The script, acting, visuals and pacing of this film are A+ quality.
Since based on the above information, a reader could be forgiven if they assumed I can’t enjoy a movie unless it is “art”, I should also hasten to add that I did enjoy watching the two Farrelly brothers movies I have seen. However, I also would rate Blood Simple and Miller’s Crossing higher than those, and four other Coen brothers movies at the same level, so I feel that overall, the Coen brothers are much better.
Now, since I have a spreadsheet that has box office statistics, I can tell you that, by and large, the “viewing public” vastly prefers the Farrellys. Check out these grosses:
Dumb and Dumber $127,175,374
Kingpin $24,958,270
There's Something About Mary $176,484,652
Me, Myself & Irene $90,567,722
Osmosis Jones $13,596,911
Shallow Hal $70,836,296
Stuck On You $33,828,318
Now, obviously they’ve had a few clunkers, and this doesn’t account for the DVD/video rentals/sales, but their average gross of 76mil is 30 million more than what the Coen brothers’ most successful (in theaters) movie, O Brother, Where Art Thou grossed. I draw no conclusions from these statistics. However, you may feel free to do so. 
Here are the relevant filmography’s for both, summarized:
Coens:
Blood Simple (1985)
Raising Arizona (1987)
Miller’s Crossing (1990)
Barton Fink (1991)
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Fargo (1996)
The Big Lebowski (1998)
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001)
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
The Ladykillers (2004)
Farrellys:
Dumb & Dumber (1994)
Kingpin (1996)
There’s Something About Mary (1998)
Outside Providence (1999) (Writers & Producers)
Me, Myself & Irene (2000)
Say It Isn’t So (2001) (Producers)
Osmosis Jones (2001)
Shallow Hal (2002)
Stuck on You (2003)
While TSAM was genius, and the acting in D & D’r was amazing, there’s no comparison.
The Coens trio of ‘Fargo’, ‘The Big Lebowski’, and ‘O Brother’ trump anything the Farrellys have done, or are likely to do.
Perhaps the Farrellys are more adept at marketing, and their sophmoric humor is better suited for mass audiences, but as far as film-making, they’re not even in the same league.
Coens. Personally I can’t stand the Farrellys.
Hear hear.
Another “Wha?” 
To apply the OP imagery, it’s like comparing a champion thoroughbred with a merry-go-round horse. No comparison at all…
My opinion would be the same, however, it is only my opinion.
The reason I asked this question, is that, as Rufus Xavier has already pointed out, the Farrellys are much more successfull at the box office. I’m not saying that this is the criterion one should use to pick the best pair of directors, but it made me wonder if I was in the minority in favoring the Coens.
I have only been subscribing to these boards for a short time, and haven’t seen anything posted about either pair. I guess I have quickly learned that most of you will probably agree with my own opinion.
Let me add this, I own only 5 DVD’s. 3 are the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and the other two are O Brother Where art Thou, and The Big Lebowski.
I would be interested to hear from anyone who actually does favor the Farrellys, there has to be someone out there.
I agree, the Coen brothers are in a different class. In fact, they rank right up near the top for ALL directors. They’ve made several of the best movies of the last 20 years.
A better comparison would be, “The Farrely Brothers or the Zucker Brothers?”
I’ll take the Zuckers. The Farrely brothers have made some amusing movies, but none of them are classics. Perhaps “There’s Something About Mary” will be remembered and watched 20 years from now, but that’s about it.
Their new movie “Fever Pitch” with Jimmy Fallon and Drew Barrymore may be their best film to date, however. Hard as that is to believe. Both Ebert and Roper raved about it, comparing the chemistry between the two to Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan.
There is somebody on these boards who thinks that Shallow Hal is maybe the greatest movie ever. Of course we also had somebody here who thought that Showgirls was a masterpiece that was only understood by himself and Paul Verhoven.
I have to agree with everybody else- there is no contest. The Coens simply make movies that I want to see and the Farrellys simply make movies that I don’t want to see.
This thread is the perfect staging area for the humor snobs on this board.
I like 'em both, a lot. I’ve loved the Coens since BARTON FINK and the Farrellys since MARY.
I’d favor the Farrellys if I were picking a movie for the whole family, or was feeling glum and needed a quick pick me up, or needed a good first date movie, or needed a better class of scatological humor. The Farrellys are innovators, not imitators, in this regard.
The Farrellys are more successful financially because their humor is a blend of the cerebral and slapstick that appeals to a wider audience, while the Coens are mostly cerebral humorists. I rather like smart comedy but humor that massages the intellect while rarely evoking lowbrow humor elements just doesn’t satisfy as much. I think this is true for many, many people besides me.
The horses comparison, as well as Mozart vs.Weird Al, are pretty elitist. Those of you who think they’re apt should be reminded that patterning a good merry-go-round after a thoroughbred, or a good Weird Al composition based on Mozart, would require an appreciation and mastery of several different elements that appeals to a wider audience range than just sticking with the inbred breeding required to produce fine horses and fine music. Nothing wrong with the fine arts, per se, except the segregated ghetto of intellectualism tends to numb one’s ability to enjoy a good fart joke.
Stylistically, I favor the cinematography of the Coens, with their storytelling choices, broad range of character actors, plotlines, allusions to unorthodox source material, appreciation of regional eccentricities, and dialgoue.
But the Farrellys have an inherent originality, fearlessness and brazeness to their humor I like as well, both with the targets of their disdain and their constant use of people with physical disabilities. There’s a commonality to their work I find damned appealing.
Finally, let’s not forget-- the Farrellys, hands down, have much better looking women in their films. I’m from the generation who’d go to the movies hoping to see some erect nip, and I’m much more likely to be satisfied with naked nipples from the lvely ladies in a Farrelly Bros. movie than a Coens movie (although the casino shot in the LADYKILLERS remake did bring unexpected quotient of Big Fat Jiggling Sister Ass.[sub]TM[/sub]) And whatever the other merits of HUDSUCKER PROXY, I can’t quite forgive the Coens for foisting Anna Nicole Smith on an unsuspecting world.
I disagree that this comparison is elitist. It certainly wasn’t intended to be. The Farrelly Brothers are very good at what they do, which is something very different than what the Coen Brothers do. To put it very broadly, the Coens are making high art, the Farrelly’s low art. Both are worthy creations and both sets of brothers are good at what they do.
Let’s put it this way: I put the Farelly’s in much the same category as Mel Brooks. Brooks is one of my comedy gods. The Farrelly’s are no Mel Brooks. And Mel Brooks does not compare to the Coen Brothers in terms of pure directorial ability.
There’s Something About Mary was a funny movie and I enjoyed it when I saw it. I don’t have any urge to go rent it or buy the DVD. Raising Arizona, on the other hand, I own and I will watch whenever I run across it on TV. I’d probably choose Airplane over any Farrelly’s movie as well.
And I love Blazing Saddles, so that blows your whole “fart joke” theory away.
The Coens are far more versatile than the Farrellys. The Farrellys’ movies are more the same kind of thing as each other than the Coens’ are.
To echo Mr/Ms. Wext
Fargo=top 10 (all movies)
Blazing Saddles=top 1 (comedy)
Farrelly bros=huh?
If championship thoroughbreds and Mozart weren’t meant to be elitist comparisons, then either one of us is being disingenuous or I need to re-adjust my thinking regarding standards of excellence. Don’t you see the inherent elitism in calling humor as high art or low art?
Well, yeah. The Coens are more versatile in filmmaking – but just not the humor they use when they film. Given their rather broad filmmaking interests, I’d expect so. They were probably the coarsest in THE LADYKILLERS and a lot of their fans hated it.
I agree the Farrellys are more like Zucker Brothers or Mel Brooks (I’d add the Wayanses, Woody Allen, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Dave Chapelle, SNL and the Daily Show) However to call them creators of low art ignores their sociological insights and wide palatte of humor they draw from – slapstick, gallows humor, farce, parody, satire, etc. The humor in their movies is smarter than it seems. They occupy a middle ground that uses both high minded humor and coarser elements.
Low humor are Carrot Top movies, 90% of television sitcoms and anything starring Steve Allen, Jim Belushi, Martin Lawrence, early Jim Carrey, most Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider and family-movie Eddie Murphy.
OK. I can agree with pretty much everything you’ve said in this one. Again, I like the Farrellys. I just like the Coens a lot more.
Steve Allen? Tonight Show, Meeting of the Minds, liked to say “fern” a lot, played the piano Steve Allen? Or did you mean Tim Allen?
I meant Tim Allen. Thanks for catching that, fern.
Well, I’ve only seen TSAM and MM&I by the Farrellys, but I’ve seen everything except Miller’s Crossing by the Coens, so my vote’s probably a bit skewed.
But anyway, while I’ve enjoyed the Farrelly movies I’ve seen, they were “see once, return to video store, and forget” movies. Nothing about them stuck out as really memorable or (perhaps more important) really different from any other comedy. The lines and stories in Coen movies are things you could only picture being in a Coen movie. That can be a plus or a minus, but it works for me.
My favorite of all is Raising Arizona, while my wife prefers The Big Lebowski.
Ditto that, except I do have something against the Farrelly brothers: I don’t like 99% of their movies. The only one that I could tolerate was Shallow Hal. I thought Dumb & Dumber was the stupidest movie I’ve ever seen in my entire life (and that list includes Halloween III: The Season of the Witch).
And it has nothing to do with my being elitist or not liking a good fart joke because I’m not, and I do!
I don’t think that saying it’s like Werid Al vs. Mozart is necessarily fair. I like both.
In broad strokes:
The Coen brothers make movies.
The Farrely brothers make comedies.
For me, that’s what it boils down to. I think the Farrely’s do pull off some nice writing and good characterization. They’re probably closer to the Coens than they are to the Zuckers.
The Farrely’s comedies do have heart, well-defined (if sometimes absurd) characters, and better stories. Zucker’s movies are just 90 minutes of gags. Good gags, to be sure, but they’re baerly movies.
Coen brothers, collectively, are in my top 3 directors (them, Tarantino and Scorsese). But, I think the Farrely’s have hit some great notes with the comedies. Dumb & Dumber has some great moments. The innocence of the characters isn’t easy to create.
The relationship between the brothers in Stuck on You was very sweet and touching. They’re not afraid to go truly sentimental in a comedy, and then elevates them about the Zuckers, a bit.
In D&D, Stuck, and Shallow Hal, they really do have tender moments between the male leads, not played for laughs, that give the movies a little more depth.
Doesn’t necessarily make them funnier than the Zuckers, but they shouldn’t be thrown that low, either.